gitlab_get_pipeline

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'Get the status and summary' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral details such as authentication needs, permission requirements, or any side effects. Basic but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise: the purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by two terse parameter explanations. No unnecessary words, well-structured for quick parsing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, 1 required, output schema present), the description covers essential aspects. It could be improved by noting any required permissions or version constraints, but is adequate for basic usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description explains both parameters with clear definitions and an example for project_path. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds significant value by clarifying parameter meanings beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'status and summary of a GitLab CI pipeline.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_list_pipelines (listing) and gitlab_retry_pipeline (manipulation), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for fetching a single pipeline's details but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like gitlab_list_pipelines or gitlab_get_commit. It lacks context about prerequisites or decision points.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.